Summary: Injured
worker filed motion for summary judgment asking the WCC to declare the
Occupational Disease Act unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide
permanent partial disability benefits equivalent to those in the Workers'
Compensation Act. Claimant also alleged that he suffered from an injury
not an OD.

Held: WCC refuses
to reach constitutional issue on summary judgement where trial could find
claimant suffering from an injury, not an occupational disease, and thus
avoid a constitution determination. Summary judgment denied.

Topics:

Constitutional Law:
Non-constitutional Ground for Decision. Injured worker filed motion
for summary judgment asking the WCC to declare the Occupational Disease
Act unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide permanent partial
disability benefits equivalent to those in the Workers' Compensation
Act. WCC refuses to reach constitutional issue on summary judgement
where trial could find claimant suffering from an injury, not an occupational
disease, and thus avoid a constitution determination.

Summary
Judgment: Constitutional Issues. Injured worker filed motion for
summary judgment asking the WCC to declare the Occupational Disease
Act unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide permanent partial
disability benefits equivalent to those in the Workers' Compensation
Act. WCC refuses to reach constitutional issue on summary judgement
where trial could find claimant suffering from an injury, not an occupational
disease, and thus avoid a constitution determination.

¶1 Claimant herein filed
a petition seeking a determination that he suffered an industrial injury
on July 10, 1991. In the alternative, if his condition is treated as
an occupational disease he asks the Court to declare the Occupational
Disease Act (ODA) unconstitutional insofar as it fails to provide permanent
partial disability benefits equivalent to those provided under the Workers'
Compensation Act (WCA). He now makes a pretrial motion for summary judgment
asking that the Court rule on the constitutional issue.

Discussion

¶2 Courts consistently refuse
to consider constitutional issues where there is an independent, non-constitutional
ground to grant the relief requested by the party raising the constitutional
challenge. In the case of In re Gildersleeve, 283 Mont. 479,
485, 942 P.2d 705, 709 (1997), the Montana Supreme Court stated the
rule as follows:

Certain constraints govern
the Court's power to determine the constitutionality of statutes.
Among those constraints is the principle that we will not rule on
the constitutionality of a legislative act if we are able to decide
the case without reaching constitutional considerations.

¶3 In this case, the claimant
pleads his case in the alternative. Initially, he alleges that he suffered
an occupational disease on July 10, 1991. Secondarily, he alleges that
if he did not suffer an injury then his condition is an occupational
disease and he should be entitled, on constitutional grounds, to the
same permanent partial disability benefits he would receive under the
WCA had his condition been determined to be the result of an injury.
It is clear from his petition, the briefs supporting and opposing the
motion for summary judgment, and the evidence presented in connection
with the briefs, that the insurer has accepted his claim as an occupational
disease and that only a single injury or disease is at issue. Thus,
if he prevails on his injury claim it will be unnecessary to consider
his constitutional challenge.

¶4 The motion for summary
judgment is denied as premature. If after trial the
Court determines that claimant did not suffer an injury, he may renew
his constitutional challenge.